Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

what would it mean for me/my images, if I converted to mono?

  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4267
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 17 November 2019 - 11:38 PM

I Am thinking it takes a lot of time to post proc w mono. Is it really worth it? I do a combination of driving 30 minutes to an hour for a darksite (like right now) or imaging at home in a bortle 5,

 

I know it would be money, but is it a significant leap up in imaging qualty? Is it worth it to have to create flats for every channel, etc? 

 

I was thinking of getting a better mount, every day it changes but today it would be the CEM 60. But maybe a mono would get me a lot more.


  • Swordfishy likes this

#2 dmdouglass

dmdouglass

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1793
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Tempe, AZ

Posted 18 November 2019 - 12:12 AM

Ballyhoo....

 

You are wandering in a dozen different directions....

With this "hobby".... you need to settle down, and spend (much more) time with the equipment you have, and continue to learn and master the craft.

 

It seems to me that you "want it all" and "right now", and are very impatient.

Slow down.... Take some deep breaths, and enjoy what you have.

 

I think most of us in this hobby like to get a new "thing" every once in awhile, and make an adjustment to our equipment.  But usually after extensive time with the equipment we have.

 

You have made great strides since your first efforts.

But you need to spend more time mastering the skills that you are developing.

 

You are doing a great job.  Just keep at it.

All of the comments above, given in a positive tone, i hope.  At least, that is my intention.


  • Jaimo!, psandelle, BenKolt and 7 others like this

#3 dmdouglass

dmdouglass

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1793
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Tempe, AZ

Posted 18 November 2019 - 12:19 AM

Continuing....

 

What you get with "mono"....

 

Well, if you like "mono", as I do, then you get good targets, usually in about 1/3 to 1/4 the time it takes to do a similar "color" image.  It is simple math.  If you do color, you can use a filter wheel and spend "x" time with each filter, and another chunk (x) for luminance. If you are using a one shot color, then you need to take 4 times the exposure length to collect enough data for each channel, due to the matrix.

 

But the BIG difference is resolution. With the "mono", there is no "matrix". Thus all pixels "count".

Of course, the BIG and BEST is to use a "mono" with a filter wheel.  Then you get GREAT resolution, and better color data.  But you spend 4 times the exposure time....

 

Me... I am a "mono" guy.  I don't do color.

 

My 2 cents.

I am sure others will chime in here...   I'll sit back and watch.


  • Jim Waters, psandelle, 44maurer and 1 other like this

#4 scadvice

scadvice

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1537
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Lodi, California

Posted 18 November 2019 - 02:18 AM

I just bought mono gear and it's pricey if you go for the good stuff for the filters. I bought the ZWOASI1600 pro and the 7 filter wheel. That wasn't too bad at  $1579 list for camera and the 7 slot 36mm EFW. Now the filters that is a different story a good Chroma filter set of 36mm 5um LRBG and Ha, OIII, Si. list for $2098. They cost more than the camera and EFW. Which puts you at over $3800 with taxes.

 

Next on the agenda....figuring out how to use it all and how to process. Oh did I say I was using backyardEOS? Need to learn another imaging program... 



#5 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4267
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 18 November 2019 - 02:23 AM

I just bought mono gear and it's pricey if you go for the good stuff for the filters. I bought the ZWOASI1600 pro and the 7 filter wheel. That wasn't too bad at  $1579 list for camera and the 7 slot 36mm EFW. Now the filters that is a different story a good Chroma filter set of 36mm 5um LRBG and Ha, OIII, Si. list for $2098. They cost more than the camera and EFW. Which puts you at over $3800 with taxes.

 

Next on the agenda....figuring out how to use it all and how to process. Oh did I say I was using backyardEOS? Need to learn another imaging program... 

did you get the chroma set though?  I do not understand all the nuances with the filters.   Could one use a triad with a mono?   You dont have to get all the filters in one fell swoop?  I read that mono has the advantage in light polluted skies which is why I would understand the need for NB. And if you are in light polluted skies you would want as many good NB;s as possible.   But a good amount of my imaging is done in bortle 4 so I am not sure the advantage there, and at home I use a triad. Just seems that on astrobin the spectacular images are mono.


Edited by Ballyhoo, 18 November 2019 - 02:25 AM.


#6 Xilman

Xilman

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Cambridge UK & La Palma

Posted 18 November 2019 - 04:17 AM

I Am thinking it takes a lot of time to post proc w mono. Is it really worth it? I do a combination of driving 30 minutes to an hour for a darksite (like right now) or imaging at home in a bortle 5,

 

I know it would be money, but is it a significant leap up in imaging qualty? Is it worth it to have to create flats for every channel, etc? 

 

I was thinking of getting a better mount, every day it changes but today it would be the CEM 60. But maybe a mono would get me a lot more.

I am a mono guy --- SX 814 CCD camera and a 11-position filter wheel.  Almost all the time I don't even bother taking colour images, though I do use filters.  The reason is that if you just want to detect something very faint (I observe outer solar system satellites and extragalactic globular clusters), you don't need colour.  If you want to do precision astrometry, you want resolution (asteroids, for instance). If you want to do photometry (variable stars and exoplanet transits in my case) you need to use only one standard filter.

 

if you want to take pretty pictures I'm not the guy to ask.


  • psandelle likes this

#7 nimitz69

nimitz69

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1636
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2017
  • Loc: A barrier island 18 miles south of Cocoa Beach

Posted 18 November 2019 - 07:33 AM

You’re doing it again .... thinking that you can buy better images just by getting different equipment.

 

It-dosn’t-work-that-way

 

Technique trumps everything - period.

 

You’re equipment is perfectly capable of producing an APOD or magazine cover quality image every day.  

 

You, quite frankly are the weak link in the optical train.

 

 If it were me I’d stop chasing equipment fantasies and just focus o mastering the equipment I already have.  Could you right now write a book about how to use and exploit your equipment to produce a national photo contest winner?  If not, I’d be spending my time trying to do that - not wandering around the Internet looking for new equipment .....  just my 2 cents

 

BTW- all things being equal (which they never are), unless you are under extraordinarily dark skies, mono will always win ......

 

dalek12.gif dalek12.gif dalek12.gif dalek12.gif dalek12.gif dalek12.gif

 


Edited by nimitz69, 18 November 2019 - 08:30 AM.

  • Stelios, dmdouglass, psandelle and 9 others like this

#8 psandelle

psandelle

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 18 November 2019 - 11:21 AM

On the other hand...grin.gif  I know a couple guys who have well over $200K invested in various guitars. They're okay players (but I've worked with Jeff Beck and Jimmy Herring, and these two collectors couldn't plug in their patch cables) but they LOVE their guitars. That's how they enjoy their musical hobby. Seems like Ballyhoo (if y'all've been following his threads) likes to buy stuff as part of his hobby, regardless of whether it'll make his images better, he enjoys the thrill of a new piece of gear. That's part of his process. Be it a sidestep in mounts, or going from OSC to mono, it just may be fun for him to get gear. Nuthin' wrong with that.

 

But, as to getting better, I'm all about using stuff until you have mastered it and can understand what the "next step" will do for you, or even if you actually need a "next step" to begin with. Ballyhoo has excellent gear that could last someone a lifetime of superb imaging once it's mastered. But mastering it...that's the rub.

 

Paul


Edited by psandelle, 18 November 2019 - 12:00 PM.

  • bmhjr and scadvice like this

#9 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17326
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 18 November 2019 - 11:46 AM

I Am thinking it takes a lot of time to post proc w mono. Is it really worth it? I do a combination of driving 30 minutes to an hour for a darksite (like right now) or imaging at home in a bortle 5,

 

I know it would be money, but is it a significant leap up in imaging qualty? Is it worth it to have to create flats for every channel, etc? 

 

I was thinking of getting a better mount, every day it changes but today it would be the CEM 60. But maybe a mono would get me a lot more.

Images with mono plus interference filters will be better.  Taking the flats, and processing the data, is not that much harder, you're just repeating mechanical tasks.  You win some due to the cleaner separation of R,G, and B.  Being to do L really helps with light pollution.

 

The most serious issue is the money.  If you're good with that, I'd do it.


  • bmhjr, Swordfishy and JCT like this

#10 Alex McConahay

Alex McConahay

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8334
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Moreno Valley, CA

Posted 18 November 2019 - 11:54 AM

As Warren Keller has often said....."It's not the Plane. It's the Pilot."

 

Alex


  • psandelle and scadvice like this

#11 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4267
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 18 November 2019 - 12:34 PM

You’re doing it again .... thinking that you can buy better images just by getting different equipment.

 

It-dosn’t-work-that-way

 

Technique trumps everything - period.

 

You’re equipment is perfectly capable of producing an APOD or magazine cover quality image every day.  

 

You, quite frankly are the weak link in the optical train.

 

 If it were me I’d stop chasing equipment fantasies and just focus o mastering the equipment I already have.  Could you right now write a book about how to use and exploit your equipment to produce a national photo contest winner?  If not, I’d be spending my time trying to do that - not wandering around the Internet looking for new equipment .....  just my 2 cents

 

BTW- all things being equal (which they never are), unless you are under extraordinarily dark skies, mono will always win ......

 

dalek12.gif dalek12.gif dalek12.gif dalek12.gif dalek12.gif dalek12.gif

I understand what you are saying, but everyone that wants to criticize me for seeking better equipment,  part of the allure of this hobby is the equipment itself, not just what it can do, but how nice it is to have for its own sake. I somehow adore and respect nicely made astronomy equipment. This entire hobby is elective, and I could have gotten away with staying with my AVX mount and my 8" SCt (maybe not .)  And I see that others have really nice gear for a reason. I am imaging a lot, pretty much on clear nights in San Diego I am imaging now, that is a lot of imaging so I do not think it is unreasonable for me given the amount of time I spend doing this to want the best gear.


Edited by Ballyhoo, 18 November 2019 - 12:35 PM.


#12 Alex McConahay

Alex McConahay

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8334
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Moreno Valley, CA

Posted 18 November 2019 - 01:07 PM

>>>>> but everyone that wants to criticize me for seeking better equipment,  part of the allure of this hobby is the equipment itself, not just what it can do.... but how nice it is to have for its own sake

 

First off, and I do not mean to be critical, but it is best not to think of it as criticism so much as "advice."

 

Secondly, if the allure is the equipment itself, then why do you always couch your questions as to "how will it improve what I am doing." Why should that matter if you are just interested in equipment. 

 

I just spent the weekend at AIC, where the best of equipment was on display. Much of it was really nice. None of it would have made me a better imager because my problems with imaging are in my brain and personality, not my equipment. 

 

Go ahead and ask "Is the $10,000 piece of equipment a better piece of equipment" if what you want to know is if it nice equipment. 

 

But don't ask "Will the $10,000 piece of equipment make me a better imager" if you are not willing to put up with those who say that practice with what you have will pay off much more than buying the new equipment. 

 

Your questions are usually about whether something will make it better for you. Not whether it is good stuff. And the answers are pretty consistently "Not till you learn how to use whatever you have."

 

So, as I said......don't take these comments (mine and others) as criticism. Just take them as suggestions of  better courses of action.  And if you want to know whether a piece of equipment is good, ask that, and not "will it make me better."

 

You are doing fine with what you have, but you have not maxed that stuff out. So, take a break for a while about thinking of new equipment.  

 

Alex


Edited by Alex McConahay, 18 November 2019 - 01:08 PM.

  • psandelle, ezwheels, Scott1244 and 1 other like this

#13 JamesTX

JamesTX

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 152
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2017
  • Loc: Texas

Posted 18 November 2019 - 01:09 PM

Using a Triad with a mono is not going to do what you think it would.  The Triad would still give you a mono image. 

 

With Mono cameras, you collect different data with different filters.  Then Assign the different data into RGB channels to produce a color image.  So for RGB images, you use your red filter for red data, green filter for green data and so on.  With narrow band.. you would would have 2 or three sets of different data, typically Ha, O3, and S2.  You then assign the different sets of data to different channels.  The "Hubble palette" for example uses S2 assigned to red, Ha assigned to green and O3 assigned to blue.  You can mix them around to however you like.  The point is that each filter creates different data.  With the Triad your collecting those three transmission lines in a single set of data, so you have nothing to mix it with. 

 

Perhaps if you picked up an Ha filter, you can then mix it with the triad data, kinda of like a HOO palette, only instead of assigning Ha to red and O3 to green and blue, you could sub out the O3 for the triad.  Would probably make for a very red image.  Maybe you could use the triad as a lum channel.  These are things you can experiment with but you wont get any color using the triad alone with the mono.  The whole idea behind Triad and other dual+ NB filters is to utilize all the pixels in a OSC camera. The bayer matrix on the OSC camera is providing the RGB filter.  There is no built in filter for Mono, hence the reason why we use them with filters.

 

As far the equipment goes, you are churning through a lot of hardware much more than most do, so it looks like you're running in all sorts of directions.  Understanding that researching, buying and trying out different hardware is part of the fun for you explains a lot.  It's your money and time, so if that's part of the fun then more power to you.


  • psandelle and scadvice like this

#14 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4267
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 18 November 2019 - 01:13 PM

>>>>> but everyone that wants to criticize me for seeking better equipment,  part of the allure of this hobby is the equipment itself, not just what it can do.... but how nice it is to have for its own sake

 

First off, and I do not mean to be critical, but it is best not to think of it as criticism so much as "advice."

 

Secondly, if the allure is the equipment itself, then why do you always couch your questions as to "how will it improve what I am doing." Why should that matter if you are just interested in equipment. 

 

I just spent the weekend at AIC, where the best of equipment was on display. Much of it was really nice. None of it would have made me a better imager because my problems with imaging are in my brain and personality, not my equipment. 

 

Go ahead and ask "Is the $10,000 piece of equipment a better piece of equipment" if what you want to know is if it nice equipment. 

 

But don't ask "Will the $10,000 piece of equipment make me a better imager" if you are not willing to put up with those who say that practice with what you have will pay off much more than buying the new equipment. 

 

Your questions are usually about whether something will make it better for you. Not whether it is good stuff. And the answers are pretty consistently "Not till you learn how to use whatever you have."

 

So, as I said......don't take these comments (mine and others) as criticism. Just take them as suggestions of  better courses of action.  And if you want to know whether a piece of equipment is good, ask that, and not "will it make me better."

 

You are doing fine with what you have, but you have not maxed that stuff out. So, take a break for a while about thinking of new equipment.  

 

Alex

I am certainly interested in learning to improve my skills I even recently invested in a new book about SGP and "friends."   I think my post was pretty clear that my concepts about equipment are tied into what that gear can do -- not to place the gear on a shelf to stare at. I could have used the info I have in the help contents of the software, but I ordered the book.

 

 

edit, if the consensus is I do not need to spend more money I get that.  But I read so much about how for example, motorized focus is better than manual. One prolific poster said I am cheap for not having motorized.  And I image from somewhat light polluted skies, so why would I not inquire about mono? 

 

edit again

 

I am not mad or upset at anyone or trying to argue. I just want the members to know there is a method to my madness.  I am looking at the improved gear to improve my experience in something I do a lot of. 

 

Would mono revolutionize my experience over OSC given my light polluted skies, bortle 4 and 5 sites.?

Would motorized focus revolutionize my experience in that I will have consistent in focus images?

would an improved mount like a CEM 60 provide much better tracking and improved object shapes and more consistency in results since this mount has a published PEC curve stat for each unit?

 

I am not seeking answers to anything except about mono cameras here because that is what this thread is about. but I am wanting you to understand why I am looking at better gear.


Edited by Ballyhoo, 18 November 2019 - 01:31 PM.


#15 scadvice

scadvice

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1537
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Lodi, California

Posted 18 November 2019 - 01:37 PM

did you get the chroma set though? Yes, I bought the whole set. Two reasons. The first I could afford to do so... and did not later want to upgrade to the better filters like Chroma or Astrodon... Second, while it would take me hours to just to type in what little I've learn this past year the nuances are important to to understand for your particular application.  I do not understand all the nuances with the filters.   Could one use a triad with a mono? I can't answer this well... other than it defeats the purpose and advantage of using single band imaging. I've only heard of using it with OSC or DSLR. Maybe some else will pick up the ball on this question.   You dont have to get all the filters in one fell swoop? No you don't or have to buy the top end filters starting out. ZWO for example sells LRGB sets in a kit with their ASI1600.  I read that mono has the advantage in light polluted skies which is why I would understand the need for NB. Well sort of, but not the main reason IMO it's more in Imaging what details your trying to bring out or forward in your shots.  And if you are in light polluted skies you would want as many good NB;s as possible. It's not just "many good NB" it is again akin to what details your trying to bring out or forward . That is what you base your decisions on which NB's... for what object and what your trying to highlight or accomplish in the detail of your image. Example: In the Veil Nubula I may want to bring out more Oxygen detail so filter selection imaging would be based on that.  But a good amount of my imaging is done in bortle 4 so I am not sure the advantage there, and at home I use a triad. Just seems that on astrobin the spectacular images are mono. 

 

 

I suggest spending time researching the 'why' of narrow band imaging along with LRBG.  A good way is through some of the video's out there on processing by people such as Adam Block or F-P Metsavainio out of Finland. It's not so much what image processing SW they use but what they need in their imaging to bring out the detail they want in their processing. Actually, this understanding can also be derived from many of the You Tube video's on basic image processing like Chuck's Astrophotography and Astrobackyard.

 

Cheer's... everything I said here is what I got out of the research, Right or Wrong. and I welcome criticism and correction.


Edited by scadvice, 18 November 2019 - 01:44 PM.

  • psandelle likes this

#16 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4267
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 18 November 2019 - 01:38 PM

I will add:

 

I think I need to take a long hard look though if I am being told I do not need to spend money, perhaps I need to reign in my spending, or put a moratorium on buying new gear for a period of say, I don't know, 6 months. Well, maybe 3 months, 6 months seems kind of excessive. Or 8 weeks?  



#17 Alex McConahay

Alex McConahay

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8334
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Moreno Valley, CA

Posted 18 November 2019 - 01:38 PM

>>>>>> But I read so much about ho for example, motorized focus is better than manual. One prolific poster said I am cheap for not having motorized.  And I image from somewhat light polluted skies, so why would I not esquire about mono?

 

You are ready to move from OSC to Mono when:

 

1.) You have controlled your data gathering (imaging session) such that you consistently get good polar alignment, balance, tracking and guiding. When you can set up a session so that you get small round stars with five to ten minute exposures. Does not matter whether the subframes are underexposed or overexposed. Just that you have the equipment setup and session management under control to do that.

 

AND

 

2.) You can properly acquire and apply flats, bias, and dark to calibrate your data, and can properly stretch and otherwise post process your data that you can no longer overcome noise limitations.

 

For many of us, that second requirement is harder than the first.

 

When you have both of these in hand, then consider the benefits of Mono with Filters.

 

The general answer is for most intermediate to advanced imagers, the process of OSC and Mono are virtually the same for any given subframe. It is just that with Mono and Filters, you do some of the things three or four times. And with Mono, you must combine the color masters. From that point on, the processes of stretching, sharpening, noise control, etc. is the same. So, it is no more difficult, just has more frames to deal with. (It is not harder driving two hundred miles than it is driving fifty. You just have to drive more. And in fact that analogy fails, since the automation in image processing programs allows you to do many of the steps simultaneously with one button push.)

 

Having said this, Mono opens up much better signal to noise ratio. It allows for Narrowband imaging. And in general gives you a much higher top end.

 

If you want to see the difference between Mono with Filters and OSC imaging, compare the two tutorials in my signature about "PixInsight and a Loaf of Bread." One is OSC, the other Mono with Filters. You will see that the processes are really quite similar.

 

Alex


  • psandelle, jdupton, Scott1244 and 1 other like this

#18 lakeorion

lakeorion

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1367
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Lake Orion MI

Posted 18 November 2019 - 01:54 PM

Having just completed the conversion from full spectrum DSLR to mono RGB and narrowband...

2019-11-16 NGC 6992 Veil SHO copy.jpg
 

System test with 9 minutes exposure in a red zone driveway with neighbors porch lights on and cars driving by.  3 minutes Ha, OIII, SII.  Then the clouds rolled in.

 

It's a grungy shot, but, 9 minutes. shocked.gif

 

Not going back.  Even if it did mean two nights of taking calibration frames (flats, flat darks, darks) and over 100 GB of interim files to properly calibrate.

 

It requires more planning but I think the results can be significantly better.


  • Jaimo!, psandelle, Ballyhoo and 3 others like this

#19 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4267
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 18 November 2019 - 02:27 PM

Having just completed the conversion from full spectrum DSLR to mono RGB and narrowband...

 
 

System test with 9 minutes exposure in a red zone driveway with neighbors porch lights on and cars driving by.  3 minutes Ha, OIII, SII.  Then the clouds rolled in.

 

It's a grungy shot, but, 9 minutes. shocked.gif

 

Not going back.  Even if it did mean two nights of taking calibration frames (flats, flat darks, darks) and over 100 GB of interim files to properly calibrate.

 

It requires more planning but I think the results can be significantly better.

which mono camera did yo get?


  • Swordfishy likes this

#20 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4267
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 18 November 2019 - 02:28 PM

>>>>>> But I read so much about ho for example, motorized focus is better than manual. One prolific poster said I am cheap for not having motorized.  And I image from somewhat light polluted skies, so why would I not esquire about mono?

 

You are ready to move from OSC to Mono when:

 

1.) You have controlled your data gathering (imaging session) such that you consistently get good polar alignment, balance, tracking and guiding. When you can set up a session so that you get small round stars with five to ten minute exposures. Does not matter whether the subframes are underexposed or overexposed. Just that you have the equipment setup and session management under control to do that.

 

AND

 

2.) You can properly acquire and apply flats, bias, and dark to calibrate your data, and can properly stretch and otherwise post process your data that you can no longer overcome noise limitations.

 

For many of us, that second requirement is harder than the first.

 

When you have both of these in hand, then consider the benefits of Mono with Filters.

 

The general answer is for most intermediate to advanced imagers, the process of OSC and Mono are virtually the same for any given subframe. It is just that with Mono and Filters, you do some of the things three or four times. And with Mono, you must combine the color masters. From that point on, the processes of stretching, sharpening, noise control, etc. is the same. So, it is no more difficult, just has more frames to deal with. (It is not harder driving two hundred miles than it is driving fifty. You just have to drive more. And in fact that analogy fails, since the automation in image processing programs allows you to do many of the steps simultaneously with one button push.)

 

Having said this, Mono opens up much better signal to noise ratio. It allows for Narrowband imaging. And in general gives you a much higher top end.

 

If you want to see the difference between Mono with Filters and OSC imaging, compare the two tutorials in my signature about "PixInsight and a Loaf of Bread." One is OSC, the other Mono with Filters. You will see that the processes are really quite similar.

 

Alex

 

 

If you look at my astrobin, am I not too far from 1) & 2). ? 

 

Edit

the above question is very subjective. There is a lot that goes into 1 & 2. There is minimal, moderate and advanced competence so I think I am in intermediate level but there is still much to be learned. Some basic concepts I still do not know.


Edited by Ballyhoo, 18 November 2019 - 02:31 PM.


#21 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17326
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 18 November 2019 - 02:28 PM

 

 

Would mono revolutionize my experience over OSC given my light polluted skies, bortle 4 and 5 sites.?

Would motorized focus revolutionize my experience in that I will have consistent in focus images?

would an improved mount like a CEM 60 provide much better tracking and improved object shapes and more consistency in results since this mount has a published PEC curve stat for each unit?

 

I am not seeking answers to anything except about mono cameras here because that is what this thread is about. but I am wanting you to understand why I am looking at better gear.

Here's what I think you're missing.  Expecting any equipment to _revolutionize_ your images is expecting too much.  Those of us with more experience know that equipment by itself makes only small gains.  And, those gains are dependent on your skill in using the equipment.

 

Note the comment above, it's not the plane it's the pilot.  That's true even though there a great many planes with different abilities.  My version is "Dustin's Johnson's clubs will not put you on the PGA tour."

 

we see this all the time here, an overemphasis on equipment.  A mono camera will be useful.  It will not be revolutionary.


  • psandelle, Ballyhoo and Night shift like this

#22 psandelle

psandelle

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 18 November 2019 - 02:36 PM

As I've said before (above and on other of your threads): you should buy the stuff if it makes you happy. If you know you like buying stuff for the pleasure of owning it, who cares what anyone else thinks? At least, that's how you're framing this, as opposed to: what will help me make my images better (or something like that)? You like to buy stuff, cool! Buy away and have fun.

 

I will say, the two best pieces of gear for improving your imaging that I've found (once you can guide) is the truly best mount possible and autofocusing. The telescope, the camera, the type of camera (mono versus OSC), OAG versus guidescope, filters or no filters...pales in comparison to those two things.

 

Of course, time, time, and more time, along with efficient use of the time, is the big equalizer for everything.

 

Paul


Edited by psandelle, 18 November 2019 - 02:38 PM.

  • Ballyhoo likes this

#23 Stelios

Stelios

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 7967
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003
  • Loc: West Hills, CA

Posted 18 November 2019 - 02:36 PM

I've imaged with mono for two years now. I just bought my second mono camera, after debating--and rejecting--an excellent color alternative. 

 

IMO, a lot of people overspend on filters. I've even seen people with an 80mm F/6 scope who think the 36mm size might be too small--when a 1.25" is all they need. 

 

If you get a mono camera, I would start with the ASI1600MM-Pro. Yes, it has the microlensing effect on large stars. So what. Not that many large stars, and it's especially funny to listen to that criticism from people who don't mind diffraction spikes :) The pluses of the camera vastly outweigh the minuses.

 

As for FW and filters, just start with the ZWO kit (EFW8 and 1.25mm). The new filters are better than their old ones. The images will be *better* than your ASI294 *even* with the ZWO filters. Eventually you may want to blow the budget on great filters, but don't do it before you feel the need. You'll be surprised how good "bad" filters are. 

 

For needed filter size, there's a calculator in Astronomy.Tools.


  • Ballyhoo, bobzeq25, 2ghouls and 4 others like this

#24 AhBok

AhBok

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2385
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Lakeland, TN

Posted 18 November 2019 - 02:56 PM

I’ve imaged with both and now use a OSC cam. A good mono cam with good filters gives you the potential of creating the best possible amateur images for your skies. Mono does not mean you will get better images, just the potential for getting them. Take a stroll around Astrobin and you will find most of the best images are taken with mono cams, but there are plenty of stinkers using mono as well. IMO, go with mono if your goal is to win an APOD or the approval of others. Go with OSC, if your goal, like mine, is to make pretty pictures that few will ever see. Also, I’m an old guy so am not seeking status from younger people (LOL!).
  • Ballyhoo and Scott1244 like this

#25 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Skylab

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4267
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 18 November 2019 - 03:04 PM

As I've said before (above and on other of your threads): you should buy the stuff if it makes you happy. If you know you like buying stuff for the pleasure of owning it, who cares what anyone else thinks? At least, that's how you're framing this, as opposed to: what will help me make my images better (or something like that)? You like to buy stuff, cool! Buy away and have fun.

 

I will say, the two best pieces of gear for improving your imaging that I've found (once you can guide) is the truly best mount possible and autofocusing. The telescope, the camera, the type of camera (mono versus OSC), OAG versus guidescope, filters or no filters...pales in comparison to those two things.

 

Of course, time, time, and more time, along with efficient use of the time, is the big equalizer for everything.

 

Paul

 

Paul I think you have a very poignant post here.

 

I really do have that sense that motorized focusing is where I need to go next.  Then you make that point about the "best mount possible."  It is hard for me to really know whether if I got a better mount it would pay dividends right off the bat or even down the line a little, since I am guiding pretty well -- I think. This is a snapshot from last nights guiding, in terms of RA/DEC value if that means anything.  

 

But I am sure that motorized focusing would pay immediate dividends, because that would improve my images in a direct and immediate way.   So after all of this, I should cut and paste this post to my desktop: motorized focusing is what I should invest in the first.

 

EDIT

 

and maybe the video tutorials, there is that one from "Block." really lame but I do not remember the name,

I could have a separate thread on which video tutorials to invest in. There is Keller which is affordable and the other one that is more expensive but maybe done better.

 

I have no illusion about how much I could improve my images if I knew PI more intimately. 

 

edit again,

 

Adam Block is the series I have been eyeing.  He is not cheap though, compared to Keller. But is not like crazy money or anything.

Attached Thumbnails

  • phd2.gif

Edited by Ballyhoo, 18 November 2019 - 03:08 PM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics